• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings: A Case Series. Annals of Internal Medicine

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Unbiased to be sure...cited reference quotes...
1. Courts have thus far provided 159 records, from which we present here all 21 cases
2. Cases were identified in 10 counties. Most subjects were male and non-Hispanic white;
3. We conducted print, broadcast, and Internet media searches using Google,
4. Four cases representing the range of circumstances in which GVROs were issued are summarized
5. Most subjects made explicit threats and owned firearms

And that biased rhetoric from the cited article’s commentary is only a quarter of the way through.

A sidebar ~ were the three young citizens arrested in the last days been flagged by ERPOs or just making ‘threats’?
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Quick scan: the authors seem to imply that 21 incidents were prevented by GVRO. That can only be true if they can show that the threats would have been carried out absent GVROs.
Are you suggesting that denying the GVRO would provide the only proof that the threats were credible? They weren't carried out. How much more proof do you need?
If you are confronted by an individual who presents a credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm, do you defend yourself with lethal force (a very severe form of a GVRO) or do you try to prove he will carry out his threat first? Your successful self defense will stop the threat, but will you be able to show that he would have attacked you if you had chosen to not act?
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Are you suggesting that denying the GVRO would provide the only proof that the threats were credible? They weren't carried out. How much more proof do you need?
If you are confronted by an individual who presents a credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm, do you defend yourself with lethal force (a very severe form of a GVRO) or do you try to prove he will carry out his threat first? Your successful self defense will stop the threat, but will you be able to show that he would have attacked you if you had chosen to not act?
Try as I might, I cannot grok how you arrive at this response to my post.

If I didn't explain my position well enough, please tell me where I fell short.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
...
If you are confronted by an individual who presents a credible threat of death or grievous bodily harm, do you defend yourself with lethal force (a very severe form of a GVRO) or do you try to prove he will carry out his threat first? Your successful self defense will stop the threat, but will you be able to show that he would have attacked you if you had chosen to not act?
Does the above apply to a cop who is acting unlawfully?
 
Top